4 ms·

Well, this really can't fail. The challenge was to develop a ready-to market vaccine in the shortest possible time and several companies managed this task. That

by _ph_ 6y ago

Well, this really can't fail. The challenge was to develop a ready-to market vaccine in the shortest possible time and several companies managed this task. That is why millions are already vaccinated. Yes, you are allowed to ask questions, but why do you assume that all the involved experts at the pharmaceutical companies didn't ask those questions? And as far as I am aware, they did investigate different dosages. So what we got now is their best effort given the many competing requirements. And yes, they might have a bit generous, but only a bit, as higher doses do create stronger side effects. And I am very happy they did, considering the mutations appeared in the meantime and the vaccines are still effective. I am sure, the vaccines are going to be further optimized as more time goes by and especially more data becomes available.

hitpointdrew 6y ago
> but why do you assume that all the involved experts at the pharmaceutical companies didn't ask those questions? Because they have a financial incentive not to ask those.
BurningFrog 6y ago
> why do you assume that all the involved experts at the pharmaceutical companies didn't ask those questions? Pharmaceutical company employees have no power over FDA decisions. > And as far as I am aware, they did investigate different dosages. They did, and the result was that half doses produce as strong an immune response as full doses. This is the basis for this "let's do half doses" argument! The study was done with the bigger dose, and showed 95% protection. So we know that (1) dose A has the same effect as dose B, and (2) dose B provides 95% protection. Obviously (1)+(2) logically implies that using dose A would give twice as many people the same immunity. But logic is not part of the FDA regulatory framework. You have to blindly repeat the protocol of the study, whether it makes sense or not. Whether thousands die or not.

by _ph_ 6y ago

hitpointdrew 6y ago

> but why do you assume that all the involved experts at the pharmaceutical companies didn't ask those questions? Because they have a financial incentive not to ask those.

BurningFrog 6y ago

> why do you assume that all the involved experts at the pharmaceutical companies didn't ask those questions? Pharmaceutical company employees have no power over FDA decisions. > And as far as I am aware, they did investigate different dosages. They did, and the result was that half doses produce as strong an immune response as full doses. This is the basis for this "let's do half doses" argument! The study was done with the bigger dose, and showed 95% protection. So we know that (1) dose A has the same effect as dose B, and (2) dose B provides 95% protection. Obviously (1)+(2) logically implies that using dose A would give twice as many people the same immunity. But logic is not part of the FDA regulatory framework. You have to blindly repeat the protocol of the study, whether it makes sense or not. Whether thousands die or not.